In my manual, I always used the handbrakeIn my new auto, I use hill assist - take foot of brake, move foot to accelerator and go - car will hold for 2-3 seconds

If I could afford to own and operate two cars I wouldAuto for around town, stop/start traffic and a manual for the open road. I do have manual shifting in the Mazda 3, but it doesn't seem to work the way I expect it to - shift down, bring up the revs and then shift up = no power (I expect I was doing it wrong)

nzkiwiman: I do have manual shifting in the Mazda 3, but it doesn't seem to work the way I expect it to - shift down, bring up the revs and then shift up = no power (I expect I was doing it wrong)

Mazda follows the same convention as BMW - push for a shorter gear and pull for a taller gear. This is the opposite way around from Toyota and Kia. If you're doing it the wrong way around it should be obvious from your tachometer.

You'd think the manufacturers would try to achieve some consistency around this.

nzkiwiman: In my manual, I always used the handbrakeIn my new auto, I use hill assist - take foot of brake, move foot to accelerator and go - car will hold for 2-3 seconds

If I could afford to own and operate two cars I wouldAuto for around town, stop/start traffic and a manual for the open road. I do have manual shifting in the Mazda 3, but it doesn't seem to work the way I expect it to - shift down, bring up the revs and then shift up = no power (I expect I was doing it wrong)

The paddle shift in normal day to day cars is an automatic transmission with buttons or levers instead of a console mounted selector stalk. It's the same as putting your car in to second when you hit the shifter.

More expensive cars have mechanically driven clutches, which is effectively a manual controlled by a computer. But in a normal car, you're stuck with a torque converter which spins all your smiles per gallon away.

DravidDavid: The paddle shift in normal day to day cars is an automatic transmission with buttons or levers instead of a console mounted selector stalk. It's the same as putting your car in to second when you hit the shifter.

More expensive cars have mechanically driven clutches, which is effectively a manual controlled by a computer. But in a normal car, you're stuck with a torque converter which spins all your smiles per gallon away.

The Mazda Skyactiv automatics actually engage the lockup clutch at low speeds so the energy loss is pretty minimal. I really like mine.

The problem with those dual clutch automatics is that they can be jerky at very low speeds - e.g. while performance parking manueouvres.

DravidDavid: The paddle shift in normal day to day cars is an automatic transmission with buttons or levers instead of a console mounted selector stalk. It's the same as putting your car in to second when you hit the shifter.

More expensive cars have mechanically driven clutches, which is effectively a manual controlled by a computer. But in a normal car, you're stuck with a torque converter which spins all your smiles per gallon away.

The Mazda Skyactiv automatics actually engage the lockup clutch at low speeds so the energy loss is pretty minimal. I really like mine.

The problem with those dual clutch automatics is that they can be jerky at very low speeds - e.g. while performance parking manueouvres.

My Nissan has a CVT which has lowered my L/100 km down to average 6.5. My understanding is it is the way it managers revs and peak power. It also has aluminium body parts to reduce weight.

My wife's Skoda has a dual clutch DSG automatic manual in which magic happens fast and has her L/100 km at 4.8

Modern transmissions have assisted conventional engines achieve great fuel economy

MikeRetired IT Manager. The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

DravidDavid: The paddle shift in normal day to day cars is an automatic transmission with buttons or levers instead of a console mounted selector stalk. It's the same as putting your car in to second when you hit the shifter.

More expensive cars have mechanically driven clutches, which is effectively a manual controlled by a computer. But in a normal car, you're stuck with a torque converter which spins all your smiles per gallon away.

The Mazda Skyactiv automatics actually engage the lockup clutch at low speeds so the energy loss is pretty minimal. I really like mine.

The problem with those dual clutch automatics is that they can be jerky at very low speeds - e.g. while performance parking manueouvres.

My Nissan has a CVT which has lowered my L/100 km down to average 6.5. My understanding is it is the way it managers revs and peak power. It also has aluminium body parts to reduce weight.

My wife's Skoda has a dual clutch DSG automatic manual in which magic happens fast and has her L/100 km at 4.8

Modern transmissions have assisted conventional engines achieve great fuel economy

I use the hand brake in a manual. I just feel more in tune with the cars weight and power through it. My foot on the other hand usually has heavy boots on it so it's not as easy to get a good feel for the car for me with heel to toe. Although I drive a forklift so I'm used to left foot braking.

It's all personal preference.

The manual I'm looking at has a hill holding system. I can't say I'm a fan of this... I like to feel the power and weight of the car through the hand brake.

Even in my auto I prefer to use the left foot (handbrake) than the service brake on really step hills. The service brake would be safer and make more sense but having the front brakes applied also takes away more of the sense of what the engine is doing to me.

When learning, handbrake. Eventually you'll naturally start to balance the pressure on the clutch vs gas and use that method more n more. It also changes depending on the situation and you'll learn which method suits.

Definitely handbrake when learning. Been a long time since I've regularly driven a manual, but used the shuffle method a bit once used to a car. The odd time I drive a manual now I would always used the handbrake - safest way to do it in my opinion.

Manuals are nice if you want to feel like you're "really driving", but for day to day driving I'll stick with an auto.

As for fuel efficiency etc between auto and manual, I wouldn't have a clue. Mines a 2005 2.5L V6 with a 6-speed auto and I get about 10km/L. Is that good?

10km/L is likely typical, depending on what sort of driving you do. According to the display, my 2005 3.5L V6 Diamante did 10.2km/L after 3000KM of travel during a road trip around most of the South Island from Palmy, with a slightly heavy foot. Around town it's considerably higher than that :)

MadEngineer: 10km/L is likely typical, depending on what sort of driving you do. According to the display, my 2005 3.5L V6 Diamante did 10.2km/L after 3000KM of travel during a road trip around most of the South Island from Palmy, with a slightly heavy foot. Around town it's considerably higher than that :)

It's better to calculate your fuel consumption from your log book rather than relying on the vehicle's trip computer. In my previous vehicle I found that the trip computer tended to understate quite significantly.

MadEngineer: 10km/L is likely typical, depending on what sort of driving you do. According to the display, my 2005 3.5L V6 Diamante did 10.2km/L after 3000KM of travel during a road trip around most of the South Island from Palmy, with a slightly heavy foot. Around town it's considerably higher than that :)

It's better to calculate your fuel consumption from your log book rather than relying on the vehicle's trip computer. In my previous vehicle I found that the trip computer tended to understate quite significantly.

depends on the car, both mine are pretty accurate, one being spot all the time on the other is .3L/100km different all the time